In Pikeville, Kentucky, the Pikeville Independent School District is currently facing the issue of whether or not prayers may be allowed at graduation ceremonies. The Pikeville Independent School District has an elementary and high school and both schools in the district are public schools. After their class of 2020 graduation ceremony, which was of course very different due to COVID-19, they received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) complaining that their ceremony included three student led Christian prayers. The ceremony and specifically the prayers can be seen in this video. The prayers included words and terms such as “In your son’s name, we pray”, “Oh Heavenly Father”, and thanks to the “Lord and savior, Jesus Christ”. The letter then continued to state that the prayers were unconstitutional and that the Supreme has struck down such type of prayers at school sponsored events in both Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which I will talk about more later on.
Brendan Johnson, who wrote the letter on behalf of the FFRF, argued that there would be no different treatment based on the number of students supporting or opposing the prayer since the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the religious rights of minorities are protected in this instance. Johnson further stated that the school district has a duty to remain neutral when it comes to religion and that by allowing and scheduling these prayers at their graduation ceremony, the district is no longer neutral and “alienates the 38 percent of younger Americans who are not religious”. The letter ended by requiring that prayer or any other religious activities be allowed at future events and required a plan of action to address the issue.
In response to the letter, the school district and specifically Superintendent David Trimble has since responded and said that the district is working with their legal team to look at ways to handle future events to ensure that they are doing things “the appropriate way” while also “protecting the freedoms and rights of those involved in them”. Trimble, while not harshly defensive, also stated that their school’s 150 year history and tradition has been that the graduation ceremony is student led and that any adult or school official involvement was for “saying the names, confirming the class, and giving the perfect attendance award and handing diplomas”. Trimble and the district’s goals are to protect all rights and freedoms of students, both in terms of maintaining a neutral attitude towards religion, but also allowing students to speak and practice their own religions. Another interesting fact to note is that the salutatorian, who was one of the students who used religious speech and prayer, was the son of the principal of the school. While this issue can be viewed on from the lens of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, but since I will be focusing on the precedent cases mentioned above, I am going to focus on the Establishment Clause aspect of the issue.
In terms of this issue, I agree with the FFRF that having the student led prayer during graduation ceremonies is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Lee v. Weisman, we saw a very similar issue with prayer being allowed at the public high school graduation ceremonies. I think that this issue is very similar to Lee v. Weisman and therefore much reach the same conclusion that the Supreme Court reached in 1992. In Lee v. Weisman, Justice Kennedy, delivering the majority opinion, stated that due to the amount of school involvement in the process of choosing prayers and religious officials to lead them, the graduation prayers “bore the imprint of the State” (Munoz 383). The case might have been decided differently if the school had no involvement in the process and simply observed prayers occurring during the ceremony, but they were planned and purposeful. This is also the case here. The school district plans the graduation ceremonies every year, chooses students to speak and represent the school and Trimble even admitted that student led prayers are part of the event even though the more specific Christian statements came from the students themselves. By planning the event and putting time aside for prayer, student, adult, or school official led, is excessive entanglement and violates the neutrality to religion required by the Establishment Clause.
In Justice Scalia’s dissent in this case, he argued that there was no coercion at all, suggesting that the only coercion that does exist is physical coercion. Scalia argued that attendance was not mandatory at the graduation ceremony itself and that students would still receive their diplomas and graduate even if they did not attend the event (Munoz 394-396). However, the majority argued that while attendance may not be mandatory, it is a crucial event that all students should feel comfortable attending. They argued that saying that students have a fair choice of whether or not to attend their high school graduations is “formalistic in the extreme” (Munoz 385). The majority turns to the history and traditions of education and how high school graduations have been and continue to be critically important events in an individual’s life. I connected this to the FFRF’s co-President’s, Annie Laurie Gaylor, argument that the “culmination of 13 years of secular education should not end in divisive and exclusionary prayer, but in a celebration that welcomes all students and participants.” Finally, the majority acknowledged that taking offense at any and all religious actions, even nonreligious ones, and it may not result in a violation, but in this case, the conformity required by students are sufficient and did not withstand the test of the Establishment Clause (Munoz 385).
The second case referenced in the letter was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. This case was similar, dealing with student led prayer at school sponsored events, but instead of a high school graduation, this case dealt with prayer before football games and whether they violated the Establishment Clause. In this case, speech was a much bigger issue as it dealt with student speech as opposed to a religious official. The dissent and the school argued that the speech presented in this case was private speech and could therefore not be controlled. The majority, however, argued that while there is a significant difference between private speech and public speech, the speech in this matter was in fact public, not private. The football games are at the school which is government property and the games were government sponsored and school related events and while even if unintended to promote one religion or another, there are limitations and regulations that must be followed. Additionally, the schools did not properly distance itself from the event, showing excessive entanglement, as we saw in the previous case. The school was directly involved in the election of the speaker, by the nature of the policy, it invited religious messages to be shared. The message was broadcast over the school’s PA system, which was and is under the control of school officials and is quite undoubtably filled with crests, merchandise, and more of school pride and promotion. Justice Stevens examined the reasonable observer and argues that in that context, it would be difficult to argue that the school is not in full support of this program. In the issue with Pikeville, a similar argument about the kind of speech was used in favor of allowing the prayers at graduation, but I believe that the majority opinion in Santa Fe sufficiently addressed this argument. Additionally, the school in the Santa Fe case was private, while here the school is public, further clarifying the purpose of maintaining neutrality and the speech being public.
I believe that this case provided the perfect intersection of Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. This case dealt with prayer at graduation like Lee, but was spoken by students rather than a school or religious official like in Santa Fe. Based on the precedent, I think that this issue should be decided as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the prayers should no longer be allowed at the school district’s graduation ceremonies. While it is important to protect every individual’s free exercise of religion, in the context of schools and government sponsored institutions, there must be great care taken to maintain religiously neutral in all aspects.
12 comments:
Ariel,
You did a great job of applying this case to two important and similar precedents. I think you make a good point that the planning of the event and putting aside the time for prayer is excessive entanglement because the school took part in the planning, thus not making this neutral to religion. You also make a great point that this was a school-sponsored event and even though the prayers were led by students, it is still constituted as public speech and violates the establishment clause.
I agree with your analysis and how you came to your conclusion for this case. The most compelling argument for me was how involved the school was in likely overseeing the speeches and prayers of the students who were expected to speak. The school then permitting students to lead a prayer that they approve of can lead to other students seeing this as the school endorsing that particular religion over others. I want to push back on one of the points you made which Professor Gasaway also challenged me on during class where you note that everyone has the right to be comfortable at their graduation ceremony but is it unconstitutional to make someone feel uncomfortable? I think in Cantwell v. Connecticut anyway the Supreme Court ruled it did not matter if the speech of the Jehovah's Witnesses offended Catholics.
While I agree with the outcome of Lee v. Weisman and that there is an element of coercion present when a speaker at an event proposes that everyone join together to pray, I can see where Scalia's explanation that a respectful acknowledgment of the religious ideas of others is not necessarily coercion may apply here. In this situation, I can imagine that if a student, like he salutatorian, chose to invoke religious language or make religious references in her/his personal speech, then the other students respectfully and passively listening to the speech would not constitute coercion. I think the line needs to be drawn regarding coercion when religious speech or references begin to imply action from the audience. A call to prayer from a student speaker, for example, is not creating an environment that comforts those who would remain passive and encourages religious action. These instances I think constitute establishment via coercion. However, if a student merely referenced religion in their personal testimony of their experience as a student and human being, I don't see that as coercion because those words are not creating an environment that expects others to act according to those religion sentiments.
I agree with the author of this post. By conducting prayers at such a widely attended event, it certainly makes it seem as the public school is establishing a religion. Since the prayers are planned into the ceremony, it rises questions about neutrality. Would they plan prayer for every religion that requested one? or is it just for the majority religions? It creates a very blurry line of what the school is showing preference to. I think that if the school wants to include prayer in graduations, they need to do so in separate events. My school had a separate, less attended evening of prayer before graduation, where it was totally optional to attend.
I agree with the analysis in this post, although I could see where an argument could be made for the opposition seeing as it was executed by students. However, this factor does not sway my decision because ultimately the students are acting of representatives of their entire class in a public school setting, which then appears to be endorsed by the school by allowing it at such an important ceremony. Because of this, the students who do not align themselves with the particular religious views being discussed become alienated in what should be a celebration of their achievements.
I agree with your analysis of the case. Just like the cases we read last week, I think there is a clear violation of establishment when we consider prayer in public school graduations and ceremonies. The school in Pikesville had specifically included non-neutral prayers that endorsed Christianity. When a school receives taxpayer money, it is important for them to stay religiously neutral and protect the rights of minority beliefs (those without religious beliefs or those with different religious beliefs). The precedent established by cases like Lee v. Weisman makes it clear that the school's intervention in religion and religious speech does in fact violate the establishment clause as this is what the clause meant to protect the minority from.
I fully agree with you interpretation of the case. Given the details and the school’s involvement in the process of hosting the event, selecting speakers, and giving them a platform for religious speech, this violates the Establishment Clause. The two prior cases are very applicable here and outline why this is unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see how the school moves forward and whether they remove the religious speech aspect of the ceremony or if they will merely attempt to expand the variety of religions represented, as you said they wished to allow students to “practice their own religions.”
I completely agree with your analysis and interpretation of this case. The prayer at a graduation ceremony for a public school is a clear establishment of religion. It is important to note that this is a publicly funded school and should not have any forms of religious affiliations. I like how you applied the two previous Supreme Court cases as they provide a solid precedent for how this case would be ruled upon. I think if the school held a prayer that was optional to attend, that would not be an establishment of religion because the prayer would not be occurring during the actual ceremony.
I agree with the author of this post and the majority of the comments. I think your analysis was very clear on how this constitutes an establishment of religion. Looking specifically at the way you applied Scalia's dissent in the other graduation prayer case to this case, makes your argument even stronger. Especially because the physical coercion, makes people feel compelled to participate in religious activity. Also, his argument that attendance isn't mandatory makes it seem like the religious interests of few are enough to compel people to engage in religious conduct they don't believe in or not celebrate their graduation at all. In my personal opinion, any kind of prayer in public ceremonies constitutes an establishment of religion.
I strongly agree with you argument and find the two cases you cite as strong evidence for your points. I personally find that Justice Scalia's dissent about graduation ceremonies being an optional event is an injustice in itself. High school graduation is a moment that it supposed to be a collective celebration of the hard work students have put in through 12 years in the school system. And while Professor Gasaway as well as Mckenzie comments on whether or not it is unconstitutional to make people uncomfortable I believe that its not a matter of comfort but rather a matter of neutrality which in this case the school was obviously not neutral. Its not the fact that the language could offend certain religions but that it establishes one by only including Christian rhetoric.
I would have to agree with your interpretation and argument of this case. You demonstrated there have been clear precedents in past cases that would make prayer and religious speech at a graduation unconstitutional. Even though the superintendent makes the argument that all of the prayer and religious speech is directed and led by the students, and the adults are merely there for order and name calling, the prayer in question is still obviously school affiliated, and have the effect of marginalizing groups of people who do not practice Christianity or who are not religious affiliated. It does not matter that the prayer was student led, because it took place at a school event, where many people would be in attendance, knowing that those speaking are speaking on behalf of they school at graduation. This would constitute an establishment of religion in my opinion.
Post a Comment